RICHARD WINN HARCOS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application is directed against an order dated October 11, 1974, passed by Sri N. G. Choudhury, Sessions Judge. 4th Bench. City Sessions Court, Calcutta, framing charges against the accused petitioner Richard Winn Harcos and three others under Section 120 -B, Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 6 and 9 of the Officials Secrets Act. 1923, and Sections 451/437/511, Indian Penal Code and III -4(II) Port Bye -Law as well as under Sections 3, 6 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act and Sections 437/511 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE accused -petitioners Richard Winn Harcos, a national of the United States, was arrested on April 26, 1973, at 04.00 hours inside the King George's Dock (Extension) Calcutta (since renamed at Netaji Subhas Dock Extension). He had no authority or permit to enter the dock area and he had also in his possession diving equipment fitted with oxygen cylinder meant for naval warfare and painted in black colour for the purpose of camouflage. The accused -petitioner was taken into custody and subsequent to the filing of an F. I. R. investigation commenced and the other accused -respondents were also arrested. Thereafter, on March 14, 1974, a petition of complaint was filed in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta together with the sanction for prosecution granted by the Government of India under Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act. After an order of commitment to the Court of Session, the learned Judge framed charges against the accused petitioner and the other accused persons after having heard both the defence and the prosecution.

(3.) AS regards the first and second contention of Mr. Dutta, the learned Judge has observed in the impugned order as follows: Learned P. P. has been heard at length under Section 226, Criminal Procedure Code. Ld. lawyers for the differend accused have also been heard at length under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code. In paragraph 17 of the petition it is stated as follows: That at the time of the hearing of the said matter, the learned Public Prosecutor opened his case, presumably as envisaged under Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by stating in a very cryptic way the facts of the case and what charges, according to him, were to be framed against your petitioner and others, and handed over to the learned Judge a draft copy of the proposed charges (No copy was given to your petitioner's Lawyer, nor even he was allowed to look into it). The learned Public Prosecutor did not state at all 'by what evidence he proposed to prove the guilt of the accused.